The Development and Evaluation of Novel Patient Educational Material for a Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) Result in Hereditary Cancer Genes.

A Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) is a difference in the DNA sequence with uncertain consequences for gene function. A VUS in a hereditary cancer gene should not change medical care, yet some patients undergo medical procedures based on their VUS result, highlighting the unmet educational needs among patients and healthcare providers. To address this need, we developed, evaluated, and refined novel educational materials to explain that while VUS results do not change medical care, it remains important to share any personal or family history of cancer with family members given that their personal and family medical history can guide their cancer risk management. We began by reviewing the prior literature and transcripts from interviews with six individuals with a VUS result to identify content and design considerations to incorporate into educational materials. We then gathered feedback to improve materials via a focus group of multidisciplinary experts and multiple rounds of semi-structured interviews with individuals with a VUS result. Themes for how to improve content, visuals, and usefulness were used to refine the materials. In the final round of interviews with an additional 10 individuals with a VUS result, materials were described as relatable, useful, factual, and easy to navigate, and also increased their understanding of cancer gene VUS results.

Attitudes of autistic adults toward genetic testing for autism.

Genetic testing for autism has been a controversial topic within the autistic community. Opinions regarding the benefits, risks, and limitations of genetic testing often differ between autistic people, researchers, and healthcare providers. The present study sought to understand the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions to pursue genetic testing of autistic adults and compare perspectives of autistic people who have had genetic testing with those who have not. An international sample of 173 autistic adults (19 [11%] who had previously undergone autism-related genetic testing) completed an online survey with questions assessing beliefs, attitudes, and intentions to pursue genetic testing. Beliefs and attitudes about genetic testing varied widely across the sample. Autistic individuals who had received prior genetic testing had much more positive beliefs about autism-related genetic testing (d = 0.87, 95% CI [0.37, 1.36]) and attitudes toward genetic testing (d = 1.14, 95% CI [0.66, 1.61]) compared to those who had not received such testing, although there were no meaningful differences between those same groups regarding beliefs about genetic testing unrelated to autism (d = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.49], p = 0.93). Intention to genetically test oneself or one's (hypothetical) children was also significantly predicted by autism-specific beliefs, attitudes, and prior genetic testing status. A large majority of the sample (78.6%) also agreed that autistic individuals would benefit from contact with a genetic counselor in certain situations. These findings suggest that the autistic community does not have a singular view of genetic testing, and for those Autistic individuals who are interested in pursuing genetic testing for themselves or a family member, genetic counselors have the potential to play a key role in clinical care.

Stigma manifestations in cardiomyopathy care impact outcomes for black patients: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Inequities in clinical care may contribute to racial disparities observed in studies of heart disease morbidity and cardiogenetic testing outcomes. There is a lack of research aimed at understanding the complexity of those inequities, but stigma likely contributes. This qualitative exploratory study helps close that gap in the literature by describing intersectional stigma manifestations perceived by the Black cardiomyopathy patient population at one academic medical center. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 Black cardiomyopathy patients. Interviews aimed to elicit patients' experiences with discrimination related to diagnosis, symptoms, genetic testing, knowledge of genetic results, genetic counseling, providers' actions, and providers' communication. The interview guide was informed by The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework. Data were also collected about participant demographics, type of cardiomyopathy, age of diagnosis, documentation of relevant family history, and completion of genetic counseling and/or genetic testing. RESULTS: More than half of participants reported intersectional stigma manifestations related to their race, age, and/or weight while receiving care from cardiologists, nurse practitioners, genetic counselors, or clinical support staff. Stigma manifestations included physical roughness during patient care, withholding diagnostically-relevant information from the patient, impersonal care, coercion, and use of offensive stereotyped language by providers. These stigma manifestations impacted access to care, uptake of genetic testing, timeline to diagnosis, patient emotion, patient-provider trust, and adherence to medical recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides nuanced qualitative descriptions of stigma manifestations that affect patient and clinical outcomes in cardiology care and genetic services in one medical center in the Southeastern United States. The results of this study suggest that provider bias and stigma manifestations have an adverse effect on cardiogenetic and clinical outcomes among Black cardiomyopathy patients. Clinical interventions are suggested to assist health professionals in providing culturally-competent and respectful care. These results help inform patient-provider communication, clinical policies, and evidence-based practice in cardiology care and genetics. Continued study of this topic across more institutions and with a larger sample size is needed to confirm the generalizability of the conclusions.

Conducting inclusive research in genetics for transgender, gender-diverse, and sex-diverse individuals: Case analyses and recommendations from a clinical genomics study.

A person's phenotypic sex (i.e., endogenous expression of primary, secondary, and endocrinological sex characteristics) can impact crucial aspects of genetic assessment and resulting clinical care recommendations. In studies with genetics components, it is critical to collect phenotypic sex, information about current organ/tissue inventory and hormonal milieu, and gender identity. If researchers do not carefully construct data models, transgender, gender diverse, and sex diverse (TGSD) individuals may be given inappropriate care recommendations and/or be subjected to misgendering, inflicting medical and psychosocial harms. The recognized need for an inclusive care experience should not be limited to clinical practice but should extend to the research setting, where researchers must build an inclusive experience for TGSD participants. Here, we review three TGSD participants in the Family History and Cancer Risk Study (FOREST) to critically evaluate sex- and gender-related survey measures and associated data models in a study seeking to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. Furthermore, we leverage these participants' responses to sex- and gender identity-related questions in FOREST to inform needed changes to the FOREST data model and to make recommendations for TGSD-inclusive genetics research design, data models, and processes.

Payer reimbursement practices and incentives for improving interpretation of germline genetic testing.

Germline genetic testing for inherited cancer risk has shifted to multi-gene panel tests (MGPTs). While MGPTs detect more pathogenic variants, they also detect more variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) that increase the possibility of harms such as unnecessary surgery. Data sharing by laboratories is critical to addressing the VUS problem. However, barriers to sharing and an absence of incentives have limited laboratory contributions to the ClinVar database. Payers can play a crucial role in the expansion of knowledge and effectiveness of genetic testing. Current policies affecting MGPT reimbursement are complex and create perverse incentives. Trends in utilization and coverage for private payers and Medicare illustrate opportunities and challenges for data sharing to close knowledge gaps and improve clinical utility. Policy options include making data sharing (i) a condition of payment, and (ii) a metric of laboratory quality in payment contracts, yielding preferred coverage or enhanced reimbursement. Mandating data sharing sufficient to verify interpretations and resolve discordance among labs under Medicare and federal health programs is an option for the US Congress. Such policies can reduce the current waste of valuable data needed for precision oncology and improved patient outcomes, enabling a learning health system.

What knowledge is required for an informed choice related to non-invasive prenatal screening?

Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA is a screening test for fetal aneuploidy offered by a variety of prenatal healthcare providers. Guidelines for genetic screening consistently recommend that providers facilitate informed choices, which have been associated with better psychological and clinical outcomes than uninformed choices. The multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) is a widely used and theory-based measure that combines knowledge, values, and behavior to classify decisions as either informed or uniformed. We implemented a previously validated version of the MMIC for women offered NIPS to describe the choices made by women receiving prenatal care at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center. The survey included the Ottawa Decisional Conflict scale, an outcome measure used for validation of choice categorization. We found that most women (87%) made an informed choice about NIPS. Of the women categorized as uninformed, 67% had insufficient knowledge, and 33% had an attitude discordant with their decision. The vast majority of respondents (92.5%) underwent NIPS and had a positive attitude toward screening (94.3%). Ethnicity (p = 0.04) and education (p = 0.01) were found to be significantly associated with informed choice. Decisional conflict was extremely low among all participants, with only 5.6% of all participants demonstrating any form of decisional conflict, and all being categorized as having made an informed choice. This study suggests that pre-test counseling by a genetic counselor results in high rates of informed choice and low-decisional conflict amongst women offered NIPS by genetic counselors, though more research is required to determine if rates of informed choice remain high when NIPS is offered by other prenatal providers.

Evaluating Costs Associated With Genetic Counseling Among Commercially Insured US Patients With Cancer From 2013 to 2019.

This cohort study describes the prevalence of out-of-pocket costs for cancer-related genetic counseling services in the US.

Leveraging electronic health records to inform genetic counseling practice surrounding psychiatric disorders.

Since nearly one-fifth of US adults have a psychiatric disorder, genetic counselors (GCs) will see many patients with these indications. However, GCs' reports of inadequate preparation and low confidence in providing care for patients with psychiatric disorders can limit their ability to meet patient's needs. How frequently psychiatric disorders present in GC sessions is currently unclear. Here, we used deidentified electronic health records (EHR) to estimate the prevalence of 16 psychiatric disorders. In 7,155 GC patients, 34% had a diagnostic code associated with a psychiatric disorder; 23% with anxiety/phobic disorders; 21% with mood disorder/depression; 5% with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); and 1% with psychotic disorders. Compared to 415,709 demographically matched controls, GC patients showed a significantly higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders (GC prevalence: 34%, matched prevalence: 30%, p-value < 0.0001) driven predominantly by anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and ADHD. Within GC specialties (prenatal: n = 2,674, cancer: n = 1,474, pediatric: n = 465), only pediatric GC patients showed a significant increase in psychiatric disorder prevalence overall (pediatric GC prevalence: 28%, matched prevalence: 13%, p-value < 0.0001). However, significant evidence of increased prevalence existed for generalized anxiety disorder (prenatal GC prevalence 6.4%, matched prevalence: 4.9%, p-value < 0.0001), anxiety disorders (cancer GC prevalence: 26%, matched prevalence: 21%, p-value < 0.0001 and pediatric GC prevalence: 12%, matched prevalence: 5.5%), and ADHD (pediatric GC prevalence: 18%, matched prevalence: 7.9%, p-value < 0.0001). These results highlight the need for additional guidance around care for patients with psychiatric disorders and the value of EHR-based research in genetic counseling.

IMProving care After inherited Cancer Testing (IMPACT) study: protocol of a randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of two interventions designed to improve cancer risk management and family communication of genetic test results.

BACKGROUND: Implementing genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition into routine clinical care offers a tremendous opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. However, genetic testing itself does not improve outcomes; rather, outcomes depend on implemented follow-up care. The IMPACT study is a hybrid type I randomized effectiveness-implementation trial to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions for individuals with inherited cancer predisposition focused on: 1) increasing family communication (FC) of genetic test results; and 2) improving engagement with guideline-based cancer risk management (CRM). METHODS: This prospective study will recruit a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of individuals with a documented pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in an inherited cancer gene. Eligible participants will be asked to complete an initial trial survey and randomly assigned to one of three arms: A) GeneSHARE, a website designed to increase FC of genetic test results; B) My Gene Counsel's Living Lab Report, a digital tool designed to improve understanding of genetic test results and next steps, including CRM guidelines; or C) a control arm in which participants continue receiving standard care. Follow-up surveys will be conducted at 1, 3, and 12 months following randomization. These surveys include single-item measures, scales, and indices related to: 1) FC and CRM behaviors and behavioral factors following the COM-B theoretical framework (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation); 2) implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability, appropriateness, exposure, and reach); and 3) other contextual factors (i.e., sociodemographic and clinical factors, and uncertainty, distress, and positive aspects of genetic test results). The primary outcomes are an increase in FC of genetic test results (Arm A) and improved engagement with guideline-based CRM without overtreatment or undertreatment (Arm B) by the 12-month follow-up survey. DISCUSSION: Our interventions are designed to shift the paradigm by which individuals with P/LP variants in inherited cancer genes are provided with information to enhance FC of genetic test results and engagement with guideline-based CRM. The information gathered through evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of these real-world approaches is needed to modify and scale up adaptive, stepped interventions that have the potential to maximize FC and CRM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04763915, date registered: February 21, 2021). PROTOCOL VERSION: September 17th, 2021 Amendment Number 04.

Results of the Genetic Counselor SARS-CoV-2 Impact Survey from the National Society of Genetic Counselors: Progress and penalty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Genetic Counselor SARS-CoV-2 Impact Survey (GCSIS) describes the impact of the pandemic on genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. With this information, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) can better: (1) support advocacy and access efforts for genetic counseling services at both federal- and state-level; (2) promote effective billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling services provided via telemedicine; and (3) make decisions about how to best support genetic counselors. The survey was hosted on a novel data collection and analysis platform from LunaDNA and was open to all genetic counselors (n = 5,531 based on professional society membership). Survey response rate was approximately 3.8% (n = 212/5,531), with a demographic distribution broadly representative of the North American genetic counseling field. Genetic counselors remained largely employed, providing genetic counseling services throughout the pandemic, although almost one in five respondents (17%, n = 35/211) reported experiencing some degree of pandemic-related financial hardship. Nearly all respondents (90%, n = 104/115) transitioned, at least in part, to remote work settings, with about half (47%. n = 88/189) reporting restrictions in the care they were able to provide. These shifts came at a cost: existing gaps in Medicare status for genetic counselors and attendant reimbursement concerns led to uncertainty about whether genetic counselors' work will be reimbursed. Outside of work, caregiving responsibilities increased for 34% (n = 74/212) of respondents. The results of the GCSIS amplify the importance of federal- and state-level advocacy efforts for genetic counselors and their employers. They also highlight the impact of broader cultural intransigence on our majority-female profession. During the pandemic, genetic counselors continued to provide care, but without consistent financial support or expectation of reimbursement. The ability to attract and retain talented professionals to the genetic counseling field will hinge on the success of continued advocacy efforts.

Building an infrastructure to enable delivery of genomic medicine.

To meaningfully address health disparities in access to genomic testing, major developments in the infrastructure to support delivery of care are needed. The current value chain for delivering genomic medicine is fragmented, with poor communication between the stakeholders who order, perform, and reimburse for genetic tests. Standards, connectivity, and scaled expertise are needed to reach more people equitably and achieve healthcare returns on society's investments in genomics. As the costs of genetically-targeted therapeutics and treatments rise, a mature infrastructure to support the delivery of genetic tests becomes critical.

Advancing the genetic counseling profession through research: Identification of priorities by the National Society of Genetic Counselors research task force.

To help advance research critical to the achievement of the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) strategic objectives, coordination and prioritization of society resources are needed. NSGC convened a task force to advance research necessary for the achievement of our strategic objectives by reviewing existing society-supported research efforts identifying gaps in current research, and coordinating society resources, the task force was formed in order to coordinate and prioritize society resources to advance research critical to the achievement of our strategic objectives. The task force developed a research agenda outlining high-priority research questions for the next 5 years. The questions are organized into four domains: (a) Genetic Counseling Clients; (b) Genetic Counseling Process and Outcomes; (c) Value of Genetic Counseling Services; and (d) Access to Genetic Counseling Services. This framework can be used to advocate for research and funding priorities within NSGC and with other key research entities to stimulate the growth and advancement of the genetic counseling profession.

Clinical Genetics Lacks Standard Definitions and Protocols for the Collection and Use of Diversity Measures.

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many newly diagnosed breast cancer patients do not receive genetic counseling and testing at the time of diagnosis. We examined predictors of genetic testing (GT) in this population. METHODS: Within a randomized controlled trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing vs usual care, patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of breast cancer diagnosis but before a definitive survey. We conducted a multinomial logistic regression to identify predictors of GT timing/uptake. RESULTS: Having discussed GT with a surgeon was a dominant predictor (χ2 (2, N = 320) = 70.13; P < .0001). Among those who discussed GT with a surgeon, patients who had made a final surgery decision were less likely to receive GT before surgery compared with postsurgically (OR [odds ratio] = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12-0.49) or no testing (OR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.14-0.56). Older patients (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and participants enrolled in New York/New Jersey (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.07-0.72) were less likely to be tested compared with receiving results before surgery. Those with higher perceived risk (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.00-1.03) were more likely to receive results before surgery than to not be tested. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the role of patient-physician communication about GT as well as patient-level factors that predict presurgical GT.

Predictors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in genetically high risk newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Recent trends indicate increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, particularly those who test positive for a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 genes. However, the rate of CPM among patients who test negative or choose not to be tested is surprisingly high. We aimed to identify patient predictors of CPM following breast cancer diagnosis among such patients. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial of rapid genetic counseling and testing vs. usual care, breast cancer patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of diagnosis and before definitive surgery. Analyses focused on patients who opted against testing (n = 136) or who received negative BRCA1/2 test results (n = 149). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the associations between sociodemographic, clinical- and patient-reported factors with use of CPM. RESULTS: Among patients who were untested or who received negative test results, having discussed CPM with one's surgeon at the time of diagnosis predicted subsequent CPM. Patients who were not candidates for breast-conserving surgery and those with higher levels of cancer-specific intrusive thoughts were also more likely to obtain a CPM. CONCLUSION: The strongest predictors of CPM in this population were objective clinical factors and discussion with providers. However, baseline psychosocial factors were also independently related to the receipt of CPM. Thus, although CPM decisions are largely guided by relevant clinical factors, it is important to attend to psychosocial factors when counseling newly diagnosed breast cancer patients about treatment options.

Genetic Test Availability And Spending: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going?

Genetic testing and spending on that testing have grown rapidly since the mapping of the human genome in 2003. However, it is not widely known how many tests there are, how they are used, and how they are paid for. Little evidence from large data sets about their use has emerged. We shed light on the issue of genetic testing by providing an overview of the testing landscape. We examined test availability and spending for the full spectrum of genetic tests, using unique data sources on test availability and commercial payer spending for privately insured populations, focusing particularly on tests measuring multiple genes in the period 2014-17. We found that there were approximately 75,000 genetic tests on the market, with about ten new tests entering the market daily. Prenatal tests accounted for the highest percentage of spending on genetic tests, and spending on hereditary cancer tests accounted for the second-highest. Our results provide insights for those interested in assessing genetic testing markets, test usage, and health policy implications, including current debates over the most appropriate regulatory and payer coverage mechanisms.

Randomized trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling versus usual care for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer patients who carry BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutations may consider bilateral mastectomy. Having bilateral mastectomy at the time of diagnosis not only reduces risk of a contralateral breast cancer, but can eliminate the need for radiation therapy and yield improved reconstruction options. However, most patients do not receive genetic counseling or testing at the time of their diagnosis. In this trial, we tested proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in order to facilitate pre-surgical genetic counseling and testing. METHODS: We recruited newly diagnosed breast cancer patients at increased risk for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation. Of 379 eligible patients who completed a baseline survey, 330 agreed to randomization in a 2:1 ratio to RGCT (n = 220) versus UC (n = 108). Primary outcomes were genetic counseling and testing uptake and breast cancer surgical decisions. RESULTS: RGCT led to higher overall (83.8% vs. 54.6%; p < 0.0001) and pre-surgical (57.8% vs. 38.7%; p = 0.001) genetic counseling uptake compared to UC. Despite higher rates of genetic counseling, RGCT did not differ from UC in overall (54.1% vs. 49.1%, p > 0.10) or pre-surgical (30.6% vs. 27.4%, p > 0.10) receipt of genetic test results nor did they differ in uptake of bilateral mastectomy (26.6% vs. 21.8%, p > 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Although RGCT yielded increased genetic counseling participation, this did not result in increased rates of pre-surgical genetic testing or impact surgical decisions. These data suggest that those patients most likely to opt for genetic testing at the time of diagnosis are being effectively identified by their surgeons.

Adaptation of couples living with a high risk of breast/ovarian cancer and the association with risk-reducing surgery.

Women who carry BRCA1/2 mutations have a significantly elevated risk for breast and ovarian cancer. The positive test result and subsequent decisions about risk reducing behaviors can evoke distress, anxiety and worry. Psychological adaptation, or the process of coming to terms with the implications of a health threat, is an understudied construct in BRCA1/2 carriers. Little is known about adaptation and how it relates to other aspects of living at high risk for cancer. Even less is understood about adaptation among partners of BRCA1/2 carriers, and its relationship to adaptation in high risk individuals. Women at increased risk of breast/ovarian cancer (N = 103) and a subset of partners (N = 39) completed questionnaires that assessed risk management decisions (e.g. screening, risk-reducing surgery), dyadic coping, and the outcome of psychological adaptation. Women who had undergone risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) had significantly higher levels of adaptation than those who had not (t = 5.5, p < 0.001, d = 1.10). Partners of women who had undergone RRM also had higher levels of adaptation than partners of women who had not undergone RRM (t = 3.7, p = 0.01, d = 0.96), though this association was not statistically significant when controlling for carriers' adaptation. Undergoing risk-reducing oophorectomy was not associated with adaptation for BRCA1/2 carriers or their partners. Risk-reducing mastectomy is a significant event in the process of adapting to life at risk for hereditary cancer. Further, adaptation among partners is highly related to adaptation in carriers. These results aid in the understanding of the experience of couples living with cancer risk and the medical decisions related to adaptation.